1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Republican controlled senate means...?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Timsup2nothin, Nov 5, 2014.

  1. Ephesian429

    Ephesian429 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Kentucky, USA
    Before the Republican majority gets a chance to do anything, watch what happens when the continuing resolution for spending expires in December. That may drive some agendas.
     
  2. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    36,052
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Problem is that there was no left domination, godless or otherwise. The Republicans have controlled the House and held the government at a standstill for the last four years. The only thing 'dominant' has been stagnation.
     
  3. Harv

    Harv Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,207
    I forgot to answer your question: Your guess is correct.

    Now why is it a bad thing for the government to be at a standstill? It is called "gridlock" and we have at least two more years of it!

    With the one party in charge of both the House and Senate, it means legislation can make it to the President's desk for signature. If he opposes it, then he will veto it. So legislation dies on the President's desk instead of the Senate - instead of being rammed down our throats as would be the case under one-party rule.

    If the legislation being proposed has very broad popular support, somebody might be more inclined to come to some kind of agreement and pass it.

    I do not think it will happen like that. There might be a showdown next year to see which side is getting more support, but I think they will work something out.

    If you are looking for one-party rule on the D side in 2016: Firstly, I think you need a different presidential candidate. The one that keeps getting named cannot win the election, in my opinion. Secondly, you need a different House minority leader. Then take a look at what states are coming up in Senate races and see which ones you need to flip.

    I think 2016 will bring us two more candidates that make us :vomit:
     
  4. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,357
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    If the recent election is any guide, the Republicans were right to do so.

    That said, how many Bills passed the House and never made it to the floor of the Senate? Gridlock was a two way street.

    J
     
  5. kramerfan86

    kramerfan86 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,572
    While one party ramming things down everyone's throats is undesirable complete gridlock when major problems exist isnt particularly better. In an idealistic world they would work together, but they are all far too concerned about political victories to do that even for popular legislation. Democrats wont want to make the republicans look effective so they wont cooperate and republicans dont want obama to look effective so they wont cooperate, even on things people want.
     
  6. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    36,052
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Well, more than fifty iterations of 'we don't like Obamacare' didn't get anywhere...but one has to think they weren't really meant to. Other than that petulant display I'm not sure what else got killed in the Senate. That 'gridlock is a two way street' song isn't backed by much of an orchestra, though. I think the general perspective is that the Republicans committed to stopping the government in its tracks the day Obama got elected, and by and large they have done it. Anyone who doesn't see that as a good thing is almost certainly going to blame them.

    As to the recent election, if creating record low turn outs was the objective the Republicans succeeded, but do you think that is effective as a long term strategy?
     
  7. IcarusBen

    IcarusBen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2013
    Messages:
    13
    Gender:
    Male
    My hope is that, sooner or later, America will have a Republican president and a Democratic vice-president, or vice versa. That would be great. Or better yet, an independent in office.
     
  8. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    36,052
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Unfortunately the vice president could be anyone from Mussolini to Marx and unless the president dies it will make pretty much no difference at all. Splitting those two offices between the two parties would be pretty much asking for an assassination.
     
  9. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,357
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    I see denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    Reiterations of "we don't like Obamacare" won an extremely wide election. Reiterations of "Racist" is what did not work. Actually, the mantra was, "This administration isn't solving the problem. This administration is the problem." It worked everywhere. For six years, the only policies, the only ideas debated, were Democrat initiatives. That is plenty of orchestra. It was not a record low turnout. It was a record low Democrat turnout.

    I am not a Republican, but I recognize the justice of their complaint. If you do not recognize this election as a slap in your attitude, you are refusing to see the obvious. A Persian saying goes, "A man cannot see with gold in his eyes." It works for prejudgments as well.

    J
     
  10. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,357
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    That is the situation now. Our system was designed to separate power. The Vice President has no real authority. He is essentially a designated heir.

    The divide in power is between the President and Congress from another. Even Congress is divided into two functional houses. It's a very American thing. Contrast the British system where the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament.

    Bill Clinton worked best against an opposed Congress. No one could spend anything. Both sides claim credit for balancing the budget, but it was a joint effect.

    J
     
  11. dutchfire

    dutchfire Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    14,106
    Location:
    -
    Is the popular vote (for the House) already known? Comparing it with the previous midterm is probably the most reliable indicator of what "The People" think.
     
  12. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    36,052
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Like I said (not sure what you are accusing me of denying btw) it worked, but can it work as a long term strategy? It seems really unlikely that in a presidential election year we will see turnouts in the thirty percent range.
     
  13. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,975
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Wide would be the GOP winning Senate seats in decidedly blue states. Of the purple states, the GOP took 3 and the Dems took 2.
     
  14. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,196
    Just fyi, this is incorrect. According to US News, voter turnout last week was 36.6%. Contrast this with graphs of previous elections provided by FairVote.org and the Pew Research Center. The two sites have different numbers, but they both show that voter turnout for midterm elections since 1948/1950 has been higher than it was last week. I'm not sure the numbers have been fully crunched yet, but so far it looks like this year's was the poorest voter participation rate in decades.



     
  15. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,196
    Yeah, it seems like a lot of voters stuck to their Party affiliation, come Hell or high water.
     
  16. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,975
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Perhaps J meant that a lot of the voters in the 2014 election had a tendency to take a wide stance.
     
  17. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,439
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    IMO party affiliations are basically a way for someone to say: "I want other people to tell me what to think".. which is why I've never been affiliated with one, except for a brief flirtation with the green party.

    I mean, I understand their purpose and benefits, and there are many, but people who "toe the line" as voters just strike me as soulless automatons.
     
  18. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    I concur. I am hearing rumblings that Sen. McCaskill (D) may run for Governor of Missouri in 2016. If so, she's almost guaranteed my vote.

    As regards the Senate, I think we're going to see quite a bit of progress in a lot of things. Like most all Presidents, Obama probably cares more about history at this point than he does anything else. He's going to want SOME successes for his legacy since the only thing he can possibly call a success over the last six years is something that the majority of the country wish they could barf out. That means cooperating with the Senate.

    The wrench in the gears is going to be the House, not the Senate.
     
  19. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    36,052
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Obama accomplished health care reform, which every president since Nixon knew needed to be done and none got done...and very few even took on. He also presided over surviving the financial crisis of 2008, which history will recognize as one of the greatest world wide economic disasters of all time. I think his legacy is secure no matter what happens in the next two years.
     
  20. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    Legacy as worst President of the post WWI era? Yeah, okay, I'll give him that. Wait, no... there's still Carter. You dodged that one, Obama!
     

Share This Page